Welcome to the PokéCommunity!

Hi there! Thanks for visiting PokéCommunity. We’re a group of Pokémon fans dedicated to providing the best place on the Internet for discussing ideas and sharing fan-made content. Welcome! We’re glad you’re here.

In order to join our community we need you to create an account with us. Doing so will allow you to make posts, submit and view fan art and fan fiction, download fan-made games, and much more. It’s quick and easy; just click here and follow the instructions.

For me, I go for uniqueness, storyline and genre. Metro 2033 is a beautiful example; Very little or no games are FPS' played in the underground metro. I am a huge fan of FPS' and I know a lot of people are, but the setting of this game buys it for me. Not just that, it has a very creative and interesting storyline which I absolutely was stuck to as soon as I started to play the game.

Storyline, and this may be weird but customization. I love The Sims 3 and in Pokemon, I nickname my Pokemon and all that. Even in RPGs and stuff I spend way too much time combining held items and everything.

I'm more into storyline, adventure, and action. If a game has a storyline alongside some elements, I'll end up playing it. Syphon Filter, Metal Gear Solid, and Skyrim are some examples of games I like that have those three elements that appeal to me.

Storyline, fun combat and amazing graphics. I'm talking storyline like Final Fantasy VII, combat like The Last Story and graphics like the recent Tomb Raider (which I'm planning to get this Christmas. :D).

So I simply adore RPGs. Square Enix has always amused me with their graphics and amazing storylines.

-Genre. If it's a platformer or a fighting game then there are more chances I'll play it than say, an FPS or RPG.
-Graphics. And I'm talking graphics generally, not just technically. So the artstyle and visuals are important to me, and if I dislike them I probably won't play it. I think an interesting game for this to mention would be Little King's Story. I love the childish cartoon artstyle in the Wii game, but the anime moe BS the vita remake has is something I awfully despise and made me stay away from it. Games like SMT: Nocturne and Okami, while both PS2 games, were amazing to look at, in contrast to say Skyrim and Call of Duty despite being technically superior, didn't have an appealing art style. It's also a big reason why I think Halo >>>>>>>>>>>>> CoD.
-Gameplay. If it looks and does play amazingly with great polish, then I will play it. Despite both being platformers and having great artstyles, I played Rayman Origins because of the many options you have playing the game over Super Meat Boy because it was more trial and error. (Not to say SMB's gameplay isn't polished, just not a fan of trial and error.)

Of course there are many ways a game can be appealing to me. I bought Punch-Out and Mario Super sluggers on the Wii because the former is about boxing and the latter is about baseball, my two favorite sports. (I also bought MLB 2K12 cuz of Baseball but it's awful. Getting MLB the show on Vita instead.) However, graphics are a big factor. Here are some games I played based on artstyle alone: (Alright, not really just on artstyle.)
-Rhythm Heaven (absolutely love this one.)
-Yoshi's Island (didn't like it as much as I hoped, however.)
-Wario Land: Shake It!
-Trauma Center
-Little King's Story
-Zack and Wiki
-Ultimate Spider-Man (it was a Spider-Man game with an actual comic-book artstyle.)
-Donkey Kong Country Returns
-Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword
-Rayman Origins

Quote originally posted by Taro Tanaka:

Storyline and originality. Those are the two main reasons why you might see me play Metal gear Solid games instead of Call of Duty ones, which I despise.

I'm more into storyline, adventure, and action. If a game has a storyline alongside some elements, I'll end up playing it. Syphon Filter, Metal Gear Solid, and Skyrim are some examples of games I like that have those three elements that appeal to me.

Good story, cool and strategic battle system, the ability to customize your characters in some way, if the last one doesn't apply at least give me a good supply of characters to choose from, and last but not least side quests.

Well I guess we can check off storyline as the most appealing part of a game, haha.
I'd say I check for the genre of the game first and the type of storyline it has. I'm mostly into fantasy/sci-fi stuff.. ya know, knights and dragons, as well as high-tech weapons and post-apocalyptic settings. I couldn't play a game with a bland storyline, as it's the main purpose for playing it. It's just like reading a book.

On the visual side, I don't care much about graphics as long as they don't overdue do it just to try and match other games' standards. Some games also have really good graphics, but they just don't work with the type of gameplay... Retro is cool, and realism is cool.

Also as opposed to many others, I don't really care much for the 'originality' factor... some games have a certain format as for what goes on in the story and the combat systems for example, and honestly if I enjoy it, then it works and I don't mind if it's used over and over again (as long as it's not a direct copy). For example, any game that mimics aspects of Final Fantasy games, I'll play as long as the rest of the game isn't a cheap knock-off.

It depends, but usually it's all about storyline and/or gameplay. I'll take one or the other, though I prefer both. This is basically for all games, but mainly for RPGs. For FPS or TPS titles I prefer gameplay, because I typically don't play them for their storyline with the exception of Metro 2033 and a few others.

As far as other genres go, if the game looks fun to me then most likely i'll play it whether it's a puzzle game, racing game, etc.

I'll admit that I am kind of shallow and that I look at a games visuals first. If they can impress me then I give it a try. Then I'll look at gameplay to make sure its solid. If a game offers a unique experience (ie Journey) then I am more inclined to research it.

I've had gaming experiences that have taught me to never downplay a game due to bad graphics. Because of this, graphics mean very little to me now; so does storyline, for that matter. It's a wonderful bonus if a game has a heart-wrenching, heroic tale or two, don't get me wrong. But to me, the main aspect of any game is the gameplay.

I love games that mercilessly challenge the player; I eat up games that require extremely high levels of technical consistency.

But the main thing I enjoy about games with inhuman skill caps is the fact that I know I'll never finish them. All the time invested into the games that you can finish is ultimately wasted, as you'll rarely pick up that game again
-- you beat it, congratulations.

...

Now what?

...

NEW GAME! $$$

=

The thing about highly technical (like, really stupidly hard), multiplayer games is that the time and effort you invested will always be worth something. You'll never master the game, so you'll always be able to apply the things you learned without it being boring, no matter how much you improve.

Finding games with these qualities is beyond difficult. But if you happen to find one, you'll end up saving yourself those endless hours spent on the commercial games we breeze through in today's gaming industry... and a lot of money, too. ;]

I value challenge. A game doesn't have to be forbiddingly difficult for me to enjoy it, but some difficulty, when implemented in a creative way that doesn't just involve huge amounts of grinding or OP'd enemies and bosses, is very enticing. To that end, I also very much value originality.

I second Digimon Kaiser's vote against games being realistic. I mean, if you enjoy that, fine, but games like that scarcely seem like real games to me. I can't remember the last time I picked up a Madden or Call of Duty game out of actual enjoyment.

I also care about visual style, but not in that games have to have totally detailed graphics. Anything interesting, preferably colorful, will do.

If I am honest, every game has the ability to appeal to my gaming needs, but I do admit, if it is a sequel to a game I didn't like, then I won't be rushing out to give it a second try.

I love all types of games, apart from children's and horribly female bias games. I love trying out 'indie' games and smaller company games that fly under the radar, because it is such a nice breath of fresh air when you find a hidden gem.

Like most players, I go for gameplay, storyline, and music. I would like a game that I would seldom get tired of, and is not obviously trying to keep me awake until morning when I play. Graphics would be a BIG plus for me, as well as the community.

__________________

We must be willing to let go of the life we have planned, so as to have the life that is waiting for us.

"Kaname Madoka, do you value your life? Do you think that your family and friends are important to you?"
"If they are, then you should never think of changing yourself. Otherwise, you will lose everything that is precious to you."
- Homura Akemi, Episode 1, Puella Magi Madoka Magica.

For me? Customization and relax-ibilty. If I feel stressed during a game, I will often put it down. I dislike stealth- it winds me up too much! I play games to relax, and not to get my heart racing- though it still often would during boss battles!!
I love customization, though. I could spend hours on soul calibur making the "best" character. Or even with something like pokemon, or golden sun, where I get to choose weapons or abilities or a team.

I also really really love open world games.

Easy, yet long games I probably love best. Tales games, pokemon games, golden sun, some zelda titles, xenosaga (though I never completed it), kirby64 I liked because it was long and easy.. there are loads of games, really!

Well, obviously the most important thing is always going to be gameplay. All other things come after that and should either contribute to or stay out of the way of the gameplay. If the central gameplay mechanic isn't fun, the game's not going to work. But let me qualify that. For a game like, say, Planescape: Torment, the combat's pretty awful, so someone might be inclined to say that the game just doesn't work. However, I'd argue that the combat's secondary and that the central gameplay is more about your actions and how they influence the outcome of the story and other things in the game's universe.

Also, the player should be constantly doing something fun. Walking from one end of the planet to the other, for instance, is generally not fun on its own. There should either be something interesting along the way or there should be some sort of distraction for the journey. Ideally, though, you want the player to be actually engaging in the central gameplay mechanic most of the way.

After that, things that aren't mandatory but can sell me on a game really fast if they're done right:
Atmosphere. If a game nails its atmosphere and really makes you feel the way the developer wanted you to feel, that's something I love. Think Metroid Prime.
Characters. If a game is trying to tell a story (not all games do or should), the characters should be well-written. Saying what constitutes a well-written character would take many, many pages, so I'll just leave it at that. Well-written characters are a big plus in a game. For reference, I really liked KotOR 2's characters.
Music. Depending on the game, this may or may not tie into atmosphere. Either way, a good soundtrack helps make a game really memorable. Metroid Prime had a great soundtrack that tied into the atmosphere. Sonic Generations is an example of a game with a great soundtrack that doesn't really tie into the atmosphere too much (it does a little).
Graphical style. This does not mean graphics. This is an example of a game that isn't a technical masterpiece graphics-wise but has a fantastic graphical style. There are plenty of games with good aesthetics, from Bastion to Crysis and everything in between. Basically, the style should fit the game and enhance the atmosphere. At the very least the graphical style should not get in the way of the gameplay. A lot of "retro-style" indie games fail at producing a good graphical style and instead use it as an excuse to not work on graphics at all. Minecraft is an example of a game that uses "retro" as an excuse for looking like crap.
Learning curve. A game should start off easy so the player can learn how things work and gradually ramp up the difficulty so that the player still has something to overcome once they've mastered the basic concepts. Super Mario Bros. 3 has a good learning curve. Nethack does not.
Well-implemented difficulty modes. Higher difficulties should add complexity in some way, not just require more hits on the enemy while buffing their damage output to absurd levels. For an example of how not to do it, look at Skyrim.
Story. For me, the story's always been a means to an end. The story is there to move things from point A to point B or to explore some sort of interesting topic. The story should never be the goal, it should be used as a device for making the game interesting enough to keep playing. As long as it maintains its focus, the story's usually fine. The original Deus Ex had a great story; you were always aware of why you were doing something, both for individual tasks and the level as a whole. It was almost always interesting enough to keep you moving forward, and it explored an interesting topic.
Exploration. This is something that only a few games should really have to begin with. For those games, it needs to be implemented well. You should want to explore the game's world; the environments should compel you to explore. And the exploration itself should be rewarding: you should be shown even cooler environments, you should be shown secrets about the world and what's going on it it, and of course there should be actual, physical benefits for exploring. Metroid Prime does this perfectly. Skyrim utterly fails at this, which is kind of surprising to me because almost every other game published by Bethesda manages to make exploration at least somewhat interesting.
Focus. This might sound vague, but I couldn't think of anything better to call it. A game's development needs focus. If something doesn't serve to enhance the core experience, it shouldn't be in the game. For example, a multiplayer game should not shoehorn in a single player campaign, nor should a single player campaign have a tacked-on multiplayer. If the two are going to be tied together, it needs to be in a way that makes sense and is well-designed (Dark Souls does this well; alternately, co-op can be a great way to tie the two together if it fits). Example of this particular thing done wrong: Spec Ops: The Line. The multiplayer actually undermines the very good single player campaign. It's blasphemous that they actually put multiplayer in the game at all and was an obvious cash grab on the part of the publisher.

That's all I can think of. As long as a game has decent gameplay and doesn't lose focus, it will probably be at least decent. None of these other elements should be tacked on, they just need to be implemented correctly if they are necessary. That's what's important to me.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H. L. Mencken, unsourced

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"- Isaac Asimov, Column in Newsweek (21 January 1980) [source]

The PokéCommunity

Meta

Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.